Thursday, July 18, 2013

IRS Scandal - Todays Testimony

Here are testimony points that have been brought forth by Carter Hull, a tax attorney that worked for the IRS for 48 years. It's quite telling, and now puts this scandal with in the Obama Administrations White House.

Carter Hull, a tax law specialist and self-described 501(c)(4) expert with 48 years of experience, testified that he sent development letters, and once he received responses, based on his decades of experience, determined he had enough facts to make recommendations whether to approve or deny the applications.

Mr. Hull’s recommendations were not carried out. Instead, according Michael Seto, the head of Mr. Hull’s unit in Washington D.C., Lois Lerner instructed that the Tea Party applications should go through a multi-layer review that included her senior advisor and the Chief Counsel’s office.

According to Mr. Hull, sometime in the winter of 2010-2011, the
senior advisor to Lois Lerner told him the IRS Chief Counsel’s office would
need to review these applications. Mr. Hull also indicated this was the
first time in his 48 year career at the IRS he was told to send an application
to Ms. Lerner’s senior advisor.

It was not until August 2011 that the Chief Counsel’s office held a meeting with Mr. Hull, Ms. Lerner’s senior advisor, and other Washington D.C. officials to discuss these test applications. During the intervening months, these applications languished.

The Chief Counsel’s office instructed Mr. Hull that they needed updated information to evaluate the applications. Since the applications were up-to-date months earlier, when Mr. Hull made his recommendations, Mr. Hull testified that he found this request from the Chief Counsel’s office surprising. The Chief Counsel’s office also discussed the possibility of a template letter to develop all the Tea Party applications, including those being held in Cincinnati. Mr. Hull explained that all the applications were different and that a template was impractical.

Mr. Hull’s supervisor, Ronald Shoemaker, provided insight on the
type of additional information sought by the Chief Counsel’s office—namely,
information about the applicants’ political activities leading up to the 2010
election.

The lengthy review of the test applications in Washington
created a bottleneck and caused the delay of other Tea Party applications in
Cincinnati. Indeed, multiple IRS employees in Cincinnati – including
Elizabeth Hofacre — have told the Committee they were waiting on guidance from
Washington on how to move the applications forward.

Mr. Hull explained that he could not provide advice to Ms.
Hofacre because his hands were tied by his superiors in Washington.
Therefore, none of these applications were approved or denied during the time
he worked with Ms. Hofacre on the cases.

The head of the Cincinnati office, Cindy Thomas, testified that
she continuously asked senior Washington officials when guidance was coming,
but it was to no avail.

Words From Our Past

Conservative Alternative to Facebook

* 'LIKE' DEFENDERS of PROSPERITY ON FACEBOOK*

Wise Man Quote

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."-Samuel Adams

FOX News

Bloggers Rights

Fair Use Notification

This website contains some copyrighted material which in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is being distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only. Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work including such use by reproduction in copies or recordings or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is NOT an infringement.